Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:38:07 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Andreas Tobler <andreast-list@fgznet.ch> Cc: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com>, Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Failed attempt to boot a (non-debug) head -r339076 on an old PowerMac G5 "Quad Core" (built via devel/powerpc64-gcc): Waking up CPU 1 Message-ID: <B3922586-6D7E-4E4A-A16B-6FB8C313779C@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <68d24bdd-9542-3007-3deb-271dcb722e9e@fgznet.ch> References: <0E6DB192-37A3-45EC-87E9-C5AA1C9397AE@yahoo.com> <785D268A-2612-459F-BD1F-A650D9ECCA28@fh-muenster.de> <A62CE721-B12A-4A79-BC43-F4E0F412D695@yahoo.com> <A7E94F86-E160-4E58-8C44-99DE109D2758@fh-muenster.de> <3DCB6910-6F08-408A-B3D1-70A7EB5A55BC@yahoo.com> <037e3dd6-cc0c-a39f-f074-bce01887156c@blastwave.org> <20181008152746.1aba4221@ralga.knownspace> <AF5D435D-727A-4C8B-8E9C-749CDB1E2140@yahoo.com> <031407DB-57AD-4E09-9A22-A0D4A347576E@yahoo.com> <C0FD8A95-A3DA-45FA-A59E-C7308EA95DFF@yahoo.com> <C6D71821-60D9-41E4-810B-008CDA772A80@yahoo.com> <4fe5af91-bbef-7873-3c48-4b1b440c871a@fgznet.ch> <68d24bdd-9542-3007-3deb-271dcb722e9e@fgznet.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2018-Oct-9, at 2:07 PM, Andreas Tobler <andreast-list at fgznet.ch> = wrote: > On 09.10.18 22:40, Andreas Tobler wrote: >> On 09.10.18 22:35, Mark Millard via freebsd-ppc wrote: >>> [Reverting head -r334498 in my head -r339076 context was enough to = get >>> the G5 so-called "Quad Core" to boot just fine as a variant of >>> -r339076 .] >>>=20 >>> On 2018-Oct-9, at 12:54 PM, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 2018-Oct-9, at 8:20 AM, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> [The stable/head mix seems to be a wrong idea: 11.2 gets past >>>>> the SMP: messages just fine on the so-called G5 "Quad Core".] >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 2018-Oct-8, at 5:14 PM, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 2018-Oct-8, at 1:27 PM, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf at = gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> . . . >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> It would be helpful to know the last known-good SVN revision, = both for >>>>>>> Head and 11.x, as well as the oldest failing one. Since my G5 = bit the >>>>>>> dust, I can't check locally. >>>>>>=20 >>>>> . . . >>>>=20 >>>> There are examples of head's kernels that sometimes >>>> fail to get to the "SMP:" messages and sometimes work >>>> for getting there (and beyond). So: >>>>=20 >>>> My reporting any example failure is a solid indicator >>>> of the "does not reach "SMP:" problem in that build. >>>> (All tries reached the waking message on at least cpu >>>> 1.) >>>>=20 >>>> My reporting "worked" for a revision might be a >>>> misclassification. (This makes for a messier >>>> "binary-like search".) >>>>=20 >>>> That said, the summary of the later detail is: >>>>=20 >>>> head -r334494 kernel worked >>>> head -r334528 kernel failed >>>>=20 >>>> (There is nothing between those for: >>>>=20 >>>> = https://artifact.ci.freebsd.org/snapshot/head/r*/powerpc/powerpc64/kernel.= txz >>>>=20 >>>> so getting a smaller range requires builds. >>>> I've not attempted that.) >>>>=20 >>>> The only machine-dependent powerpc64 change between >>>> those 2 that I see is: >>>>=20 >>>> Author: jhibbits >>>> Date: Fri Jun 1 21:37:20 2018 >>>> New Revision: 334498 >>>> URL: >>>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334498 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Log: >>>> Increase powerpc64 KVA from ~7.25GB to 32GB >>>> . . . >>>>=20 >>>> . . . >>>=20 >>> In my -r339076 build context I reverted -r334498, did a >>> buildkernel, installed it, and rebooted into -r339076. >>>=20 >>> The result booted just fine. >>>=20 >>> It does appear that, for head, -r334498 makes the difference >>> for some reason. >> Unfortunately I have to confirm your findings. >=20 > Mark, how much physical ram do you have? Can you adjust the = VM_MAX_KERNEL_ADDRESS just below the amount of RAM you have and see if = -CURRENT boots? Here it does, I have 14GB and I adjusted = VM_MAX_KERNEL_ADDRESS to 12GB. It is just a trial to find out what is = happening. The G5 so-called "Quad Core" that I've used so far after the revert has 16 GiByte. I've access to another with 12 GiByte. I've access to a 2GHz Dual-processor (one per socket) PowerMac G5 as well. It has 8 GiByte. I do not have access to a single-slot dual-core G5 or any other G5's then the 3 mentioned. Nor to any other powerpc64 systems. I normally have one SSD and just move it around between those G5 systems: no tailoring to the individual machines and one machine at a time for powerpc64 use. Given the 3 options for RAM/machine-type, is there a preferred test or test sequence across the 3? =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B3922586-6D7E-4E4A-A16B-6FB8C313779C>